I'm sorry, but the idea that the boycott is somehow threatening freedom of speech is utterly absurd.
> A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish.
I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.
Absolutely and I agree. I don't usually post ambiguous quotes but the grandparent reminded me of that quote which I liked.
I'd also say banning whole foods is somewhat analogous to people who are 'banning' non-organic products by shopping at whole foods in the first place. They are speaking with their dollars about a position they are against (genetically engineered products). If Whole Foods the company has a culture/leadership which is against health care reform, people are certainly free and rational to ban Whole Foods if they feel strongly about the issue.
Voted you back up. Fwiw, I was trying to respond to the general sentiment that this was a free speech issue, and the quote made for a good place to do so. Thanks for clarifying your stance. In retrospect, I should have used less strong language--"utterly absurd" wasn't necessary, as I can see how one might regard it a free speech issue.
> A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish.
I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.